Could Ryan Grant be cut? (1 Viewer)

[sho nuff]

I watched Grant. He looked strong and was seeking contact. He is no doubt the bst RB on this team. Starks is a marginal talent. Grant takes this offense to a higher level and takes more pressure off Rodgers and the passing game.

Grant is now becoming a value pick if you can be patient in the draft and see him slip into the 6th round.

Now here I will disagree with you big time.In addition, Green is showing some burst and if he gets the blitz pick ups down, he will be a weapon on this offense.

But to start the year, Grant will be the man...IMO...Starks will be taking the majority of the carries by the end of the year.

He runs hard. I just don't see him as a top flight NFL RB. He also runs even more straight up than Ryan. But your much closer to the situation.

Your that high on Starks?

I don't think its that high on him...just think with Grant having one year left, the Packers will let him walk and will sort of transfer power to Starks and Green, if he keeps improving, as the year progresses.I see Grant and Starks as very similar backs. I don't think they are top flight guys. But in the middle tiers...I guess I just don't agree that this is marginal talent. I think they have talent, especially in this scheme.

 

[TheFanatic]

So basically, the Packers floated a trial baloon to the media that they might have to cut Grant based on his salary. Grant see the story, freaks out, calls his agent, agent calls the Packers, we get a new deal done, and in the mean time we have message boards like this going nuts.

This was nothing more than a negotiating technique. I think if Grant stuck to his guns he would still have the same salary. Seems after sitting in the trainers room for 15.5 regular season games he got nervous and let the Packers play him.

 

[Black]

Dumbest thing I've seen in a while.

You should read the SharkPool more.

 

[sho nuff]

So basically, the Packers floated a trial baloon to the media that they might have to cut Grant based on his salary. Grant see the story, freaks out, calls his agent, agent calls the Packers, we get a new deal done, and in the mean time we have message boards like this going nuts. This was nothing more than a negotiating technique. I think if Grant stuck to his guns he would still have the same salary. Seems after sitting in the trainers room for 15.5 regular season games he got nervous and let the Packers play him.

The supposed "leaked" story came out after the apparent restructuring.

 

[FavreAndAwayAnIdiot]

So basically, the Packers floated a trial baloon to the media that they might have to cut Grant based on his salary. Grant see the story, freaks out, calls his agent, agent calls the Packers, we get a new deal done, and in the mean time we have message boards like this going nuts.

This was nothing more than a negotiating technique. I think if Grant stuck to his guns he would still have the same salary. Seems after sitting in the trainers room for 15.5 regular season games he got nervous and let the Packers play him.

Probably. And he'll be on the roster now for 2011. Still don't think he'll be on the roster in 2012. Josh Sitton and Finley will see to that.

 

[sho nuff]

So basically, the Packers floated a trial baloon to the media that they might have to cut Grant based on his salary. Grant see the story, freaks out, calls his agent, agent calls the Packers, we get a new deal done, and in the mean time we have message boards like this going nuts.

This was nothing more than a negotiating technique. I think if Grant stuck to his guns he would still have the same salary. Seems after sitting in the trainers room for 15.5 regular season games he got nervous and let the Packers play him.

Probably. And he'll be on the roster now for 2011. Still don't think he'll be on the roster in 2012. Josh Sitton and Finley will see to that.

The fact that at his age his contract is up will be a pretty large factor too.

 

[TheFanatic]

So basically, the Packers floated a trial baloon to the media that they might have to cut Grant based on his salary. Grant see the story, freaks out, calls his agent, agent calls the Packers, we get a new deal done, and in the mean time we have message boards like this going nuts. This was nothing more than a negotiating technique. I think if Grant stuck to his guns he would still have the same salary. Seems after sitting in the trainers room for 15.5 regular season games he got nervous and let the Packers play him.

The supposed "leaked" story came out after the apparent restructuring.

Doesn't mean it wasn't leaked and the reporter took some time to try to corroborate the story with another source before he submitted it to be printed. Seems pretty ridiculous for him to publish after Grant got a million plus roster bonus and then restructured his deal which sort of negates the whole premise. Sounds like he sat on the info for too long and Grant got wind and got rid of the cap implication...

 

[Black]

He just restructured his deal.... http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/news.php#735363

 

[FavreAndAwayAnIdiot]

So basically, the Packers floated a trial baloon to the media that they might have to cut Grant based on his salary. Grant see the story, freaks out, calls his agent, agent calls the Packers, we get a new deal done, and in the mean time we have message boards like this going nuts. This was nothing more than a negotiating technique. I think if Grant stuck to his guns he would still have the same salary. Seems after sitting in the trainers room for 15.5 regular season games he got nervous and let the Packers play him.

The supposed "leaked" story came out after the apparent restructuring.

Doesn't mean it wasn't leaked and the reporter took some time to try to corroborate the story with another source before he submitted it to be printed. Seems pretty ridiculous for him to publish after Grant got a million plus roster bonus and then restructured his deal which sort of negates the whole premise. Sounds like he sat on the info for too long and Grant got wind and got rid of the cap implication...

I'm more inclined to believe Silverstein (who is more reliable than most regarding Packers info) got a tip/rumor from a team insider, and decided to scoop the story. Whether it was an intentional leak or not, had Grant not restructured and was released, Silverstein would have looked like a genius. So it was a win-win for both the team and the reporter.Reminds me of Peter King always trying to scoop Favre ####, though he was usually always completely wrong about it...

 

[sho nuff]

So basically, the Packers floated a trial baloon to the media that they might have to cut Grant based on his salary. Grant see the story, freaks out, calls his agent, agent calls the Packers, we get a new deal done, and in the mean time we have message boards like this going nuts. This was nothing more than a negotiating technique. I think if Grant stuck to his guns he would still have the same salary. Seems after sitting in the trainers room for 15.5 regular season games he got nervous and let the Packers play him.

The supposed "leaked" story came out after the apparent restructuring.

Doesn't mean it wasn't leaked and the reporter took some time to try to corroborate the story with another source before he submitted it to be printed. Seems pretty ridiculous for him to publish after Grant got a million plus roster bonus and then restructured his deal which sort of negates the whole premise. Sounds like he sat on the info for too long and Grant got wind and got rid of the cap implication...

So it was leaked as a ploy...wasn't published yet...but Grant read the report that was not yet out for another week and renegotiated?its ok to admit your tinfoil hat theory was bogus...its alright.Better idea...perhaps the renegotiation simply was yet to be public knowledge...so they went with their report which was all speculative as it was.

 

[Mark Wimer]

August 18th:

Green Bay Packers offensive coordinator Joe Philbin and Jerry Fontenot said RB Ryan Grant has the burst this training camp that he had before suffering the season-ending knee injury last season. Grant weighs 218 pounds, which is six pounds less than last season but Fontenot said Grant is moving around great.

August 24th:

Green Bay Packers RB Ryan Grant agreed to restructure his contract to drop his 2011 salary cap hit from $5.65 million to $3.8 million.

LINKIt looks to me like the team was putting on some pressure to get his contract renegotiated. In my book he's still the clear-cut starter here.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Starks' health right now makes this a non-starter. I'm sure they would like to cut Grant, who isn't near the back Starks is when healthy IMO. But Starks isn't 100% and they would be one hit away from starting a rookie. That isn't going to fly for a Superbowl contender that throws a ton and needs a back that can pick up the blitz and perform in audible situations.

Having said all of that, Starks will take the job from Grant at some point this year, and GB will be paying Grant a lot of money to be a backup.

Wat?I dont how anyone can say, at this point, that when both are healthy, Grant isnt near as good as Starks. If anything its the other way around.

I guess I wouldnt be shocked if Starks is getting more carries by the end of the year, but Id be very surprised if he is barring another Grant injury.

 

[TheFanatic]

So basically, the Packers floated a trial baloon to the media that they might have to cut Grant based on his salary. Grant see the story, freaks out, calls his agent, agent calls the Packers, we get a new deal done, and in the mean time we have message boards like this going nuts. This was nothing more than a negotiating technique. I think if Grant stuck to his guns he would still have the same salary. Seems after sitting in the trainers room for 15.5 regular season games he got nervous and let the Packers play him.

The supposed "leaked" story came out after the apparent restructuring.

Doesn't mean it wasn't leaked and the reporter took some time to try to corroborate the story with another source before he submitted it to be printed. Seems pretty ridiculous for him to publish after Grant got a million plus roster bonus and then restructured his deal which sort of negates the whole premise. Sounds like he sat on the info for too long and Grant got wind and got rid of the cap implication...

So it was leaked as a ploy...wasn't published yet...but Grant read the report that was not yet out for another week and renegotiated?its ok to admit your tinfoil hat theory was bogus...its alright.Better idea...perhaps the renegotiation simply was yet to be public knowledge...so they went with their report which was all speculative as it was.

I'm not saying Grant read the story and renegotiated. That would make no sense. They leak the story to the reporter. While the reporter is trying to vet the story, he asks a few players and maybe even Grant himself if management has come to him to renegotiate because he heard there was a chance he could be a cap casualty. Management could've also leaked it to a few people to leak to the reporter and Grant heard about it before the reporter did. I'm not saying this is what happened, as I don't know, but it sure seems like this was all a load of crap to get the guy to renegotiate. If he was at risk of being cut, why would they have the guy run with the first team and not work more on seeing Stark and Green run?They're pretty deep into TC, all rookies are signed, I believe, and there are no real FA's out there, so why the need to make a cap cut now? Why not threaten a cap cut in a rumor, let a guy nervous about missing all of last year and the team winning it all without him, who drafted a guy in the 3rd, know you're thinking of cutting him in order to save a couple mill? It's not so tin foil hat-ish as you think. Guys do this crap all the time. Do you really think Bellichek was going to cut Ocho Cinco and Haynesworth? That was the rumor last week, no way it was going to happen, but I bet Bellichek got exactly what he wanted from it, Chad and Albert in line and the rest of the team on eggshells thinking, "If he can cut those guys he can cut anybody." If you think a team using the media to send a message is just a crazy theory of mine, I have some ocean front property in Nebraska for you...

 

[FavreAndAwayAnIdiot]

FWIW... Greg Rosenthal, NBC sports:

"MDS passed along the surprising news earlier Wednesday that Packers running back Ryan Grant is not a lock to make the team. That news probably didn’t come as a huge shock to Grant.

Adam Caplan of TheSidelineview.com reports that Grant took a $1 million pay cut earlier this month. His base salary was cut from $3.5 million to $2.5 million. (His bonus money due remains at the same total, although it’s unclear if the structure has changed.)

The question then becomes: Does taking a pay cut make Grant’s job safe?

It can’t, but we doubt it guarantees anything. When a veteran takes a pay cut early in camp, it’s usually a sign that the team is ready to move on if necessary. If Grant wasn’t willing to take the reduction, he would likely be an ex-Packer already.

Ultimately, this isn’t about money. It’s about who G.M. Ted Thompson gives them the best chance to win a Super Bowl this year and into the future: Grant or Dimitri Nance. (Or perhaps they could keep both.)

We have no idea how Grant has looked in camp coming off surgery, but he probably hasn’t blown the team away considering the two stories that surfaced Wednesday."

It's since been reported that the revised contract is guaranteed, so Grant is safe for his roster spot-- for this year only. But it doesn't bode well for his fantasy outlook as it appears he's on the performance bubble.

 

[LargeMouthBass]

Does this mean Starks value goes way up?

 

[Short Corner]

So basically, the Packers floated a trial baloon to the media that they might have to cut Grant based on his salary. Grant see the story, freaks out, calls his agent, agent calls the Packers, we get a new deal done, and in the mean time we have message boards like this going nuts. This was nothing more than a negotiating technique. I think if Grant stuck to his guns he would still have the same salary. Seems after sitting in the trainers room for 15.5 regular season games he got nervous and let the Packers play him.

The supposed "leaked" story came out after the apparent restructuring.

Doesn't mean it wasn't leaked and the reporter took some time to try to corroborate the story with another source before he submitted it to be printed. Seems pretty ridiculous for him to publish after Grant got a million plus roster bonus and then restructured his deal which sort of negates the whole premise. Sounds like he sat on the info for too long and Grant got wind and got rid of the cap implication...

So it was leaked as a ploy...wasn't published yet...but Grant read the report that was not yet out for another week and renegotiated?its ok to admit your tinfoil hat theory was bogus...its alright.Better idea...perhaps the renegotiation simply was yet to be public knowledge...so they went with their report which was all speculative as it was.

I'm not saying Grant read the story and renegotiated. That would make no sense. They leak the story to the reporter. While the reporter is trying to vet the story, he asks a few players and maybe even Grant himself if management has come to him to renegotiate because he heard there was a chance he could be a cap casualty. Management could've also leaked it to a few people to leak to the reporter and Grant heard about it before the reporter did. I'm not saying this is what happened, as I don't know, but it sure seems like this was all a load of crap to get the guy to renegotiate. If he was at risk of being cut, why would they have the guy run with the first team and not work more on seeing Stark and Green run?They're pretty deep into TC, all rookies are signed, I believe, and there are no real FA's out there, so why the need to make a cap cut now? Why not threaten a cap cut in a rumor, let a guy nervous about missing all of last year and the team winning it all without him, who drafted a guy in the 3rd, know you're thinking of cutting him in order to save a couple mill? It's not so tin foil hat-ish as you think. Guys do this crap all the time. Do you really think Bellichek was going to cut Ocho Cinco and Haynesworth? That was the rumor last week, no way it was going to happen, but I bet Bellichek got exactly what he wanted from it, Chad and Albert in line and the rest of the team on eggshells thinking, "If he can cut those guys he can cut anybody." If you think a team using the media to send a message is just a crazy theory of mine, I have some ocean front property in Nebraska for you...

Or maybe they were really considering cutting him. If you have a hard time believing they would cut him to save $5M against the cap, it is even less conceivable that they would open themselves up to this type of speculation just to save a third of that.

 

[TheFanatic]

So basically, the Packers floated a trial baloon to the media that they might have to cut Grant based on his salary. Grant see the story, freaks out, calls his agent, agent calls the Packers, we get a new deal done, and in the mean time we have message boards like this going nuts. This was nothing more than a negotiating technique. I think if Grant stuck to his guns he would still have the same salary. Seems after sitting in the trainers room for 15.5 regular season games he got nervous and let the Packers play him.

The supposed "leaked" story came out after the apparent restructuring.

Doesn't mean it wasn't leaked and the reporter took some time to try to corroborate the story with another source before he submitted it to be printed. Seems pretty ridiculous for him to publish after Grant got a million plus roster bonus and then restructured his deal which sort of negates the whole premise. Sounds like he sat on the info for too long and Grant got wind and got rid of the cap implication...

So it was leaked as a ploy...wasn't published yet...but Grant read the report that was not yet out for another week and renegotiated?its ok to admit your tinfoil hat theory was bogus...its alright.Better idea...perhaps the renegotiation simply was yet to be public knowledge...so they went with their report which was all speculative as it was.

I'm not saying Grant read the story and renegotiated. That would make no sense. They leak the story to the reporter. While the reporter is trying to vet the story, he asks a few players and maybe even Grant himself if management has come to him to renegotiate because he heard there was a chance he could be a cap casualty. Management could've also leaked it to a few people to leak to the reporter and Grant heard about it before the reporter did. I'm not saying this is what happened, as I don't know, but it sure seems like this was all a load of crap to get the guy to renegotiate. If he was at risk of being cut, why would they have the guy run with the first team and not work more on seeing Stark and Green run?They're pretty deep into TC, all rookies are signed, I believe, and there are no real FA's out there, so why the need to make a cap cut now? Why not threaten a cap cut in a rumor, let a guy nervous about missing all of last year and the team winning it all without him, who drafted a guy in the 3rd, know you're thinking of cutting him in order to save a couple mill? It's not so tin foil hat-ish as you think. Guys do this crap all the time. Do you really think Bellichek was going to cut Ocho Cinco and Haynesworth? That was the rumor last week, no way it was going to happen, but I bet Bellichek got exactly what he wanted from it, Chad and Albert in line and the rest of the team on eggshells thinking, "If he can cut those guys he can cut anybody." If you think a team using the media to send a message is just a crazy theory of mine, I have some ocean front property in Nebraska for you...

Or maybe they were really considering cutting him. If you have a hard time believing they would cut him to save $5M against the cap, it is even less conceivable that they would open themselves up to this type of speculation just to save a third of that.

If he had no trade value, I would agree with you, but I have to believe the Cardinals and the Lions would both give something for Ryan Grant and thus cutting the guy seems a little extreme. But I could be wrong. It's just a theory

 

[FavreAndAwayAnIdiot]

Does this mean Starks value goes way up?

I say Starks this year and later, Green. If Starks continues to get dinged up, Green may be the guy to have going into next year. Alex Green was taken in the 3rd round over guys like Kendall Hunter, Helu, Delone Carter... Obviously we haven't seen a lot of him, yet, but he's definitely got the potential to be a full-time guy. I think in dynasty leagues, Green's value just went up quite a bit in rookie drafts. I recently snagged him in the middle of the 4th, but I'd take him mid-2nd knowing all this, now. The chances of a 30-year old Grant being in Green Bay next year are slim. It'll be an interesting situation to watch.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

It's like people can never wait for the current GB runner to be replaced so that they can anticipate the replacement's replacment.

 

[FavreAndAwayAnIdiot]

It's like people can never wait for the current GB runner to be replaced so that they can anticipate the replacement's replacment.

It's probably because we haven't had that 'true' franchise RB since..? Levens, maybe? Edgar Bennett was very average. If you needed 3 yards, he'd get you 3 yards. If you needed 5 yards, he'd get you 3 yards (in any weather condition). Ahman Green was decent, but he was a flash in a pan who fumbled too much. Grant is a great rags-to-riches success story, but he's not special. I don't think Starks is special, either, but he seems livlier than Grant right now.It's ok though, we seem to get lucky with QBs.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Grant will be carrying the ball in week 1. They made him rework his contract but he still is getting close to $4m, I doubt Grant is crying a lot about that. He seems eager to hold on to the position.

Lot of Starks hype, dude is already 25 yrs old, not sure how much better at this point he is going to get. I'm not a big Starks supporter but it looks like Starks owners feel they have a high upside guy. i could see Starks not being overly used if Grant maintains his health. They loved Grant when he came over form New York, his numbers were pretty meh u the team likes several things he does including pass blocking which is going to earn him a lot of playing time. Grant is pretty nice value in the 5th/6th, you grab Starks in the 9th if you must and then if it does turn into Grant getting 65-75% of the workload then you cut Starks loose.

There really isn't that much to support a Starks takeover...starting to feel like the Jerious Norwood situation where his FF fans are the loudest of anyone.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Ahman Green was a top RB for 3 or 4 years.

Other than that, they've had (more or less) "effective" runners rather than stars at RB. Ryan Grant had a couple really good fantasy seasons though, which will be difficult for him or anyone else there now to replicate.

 

[Kenny Powers]

The chances of a 30-year old Grant being in Green Bay next year are slim. It'll be an interesting situation to watch.

First of all, he wont even turn 29 until basically the end of the regular season.Now if he starts for them the next couples years and gets 275+ carries, he'd probably have about an average workload of a 30yr old RB. But right now, Grant has to have less wear and tear than most recognizable RBs of his age that I can think of. He wasnt getting starter carries til he was 25. Many in here are acting like this is the last of a line of injuries to him, when in reality its his first to keep him out of any game since becoming a starter.

 

[zoonation]

Starks' health right now makes this a non-starter. I'm sure they would like to cut Grant, who isn't near the back Starks is when healthy IMO. But Starks isn't 100% and they would be one hit away from starting a rookie. That isn't going to fly for a Superbowl contender that throws a ton and needs a back that can pick up the blitz and perform in audible situations.

Having said all of that, Starks will take the job from Grant at some point this year, and GB will be paying Grant a lot of money to be a backup.

Wat?I dont how anyone can say, at this point, that when both are healthy, Grant isnt near as good as Starks. If anything its the other way around.

I guess I wouldnt be shocked if Starks is getting more carries by the end of the year, but Id be very surprised if he is barring another Grant injury.

I guess we just disagree. Grant has never impressed me with his skill set. Starks was dominant in the playoffs lst year and runs like a beast. Grant is soft IMO.

 

[FavreAndAwayAnIdiot]

The chances of a 30-year old Grant being in Green Bay next year are slim. It'll be an interesting situation to watch.

First of all, he wont even turn 29 until basically the end of the regular season.

I stand corrected. He'll be 29 1/2 going into the 2012 season.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Starks' health right now makes this a non-starter. I'm sure they would like to cut Grant, who isn't near the back Starks is when healthy IMO. But Starks isn't 100% and they would be one hit away from starting a rookie. That isn't going to fly for a Superbowl contender that throws a ton and needs a back that can pick up the blitz and perform in audible situations.

Having said all of that, Starks will take the job from Grant at some point this year, and GB will be paying Grant a lot of money to be a backup.

Wat?I dont how anyone can say, at this point, that when both are healthy, Grant isnt near as good as Starks. If anything its the other way around.

I guess I wouldnt be shocked if Starks is getting more carries by the end of the year, but Id be very surprised if he is barring another Grant injury.

I guess we just disagree. Grant has never impressed me with his skill set. Starks was dominant in the playoffs lst year and runs like a beast. Grant is soft IMO.

His skill set doesnt impress me (average speed, not great at breaking tackles), but he got it done at 1st round fantasy levels for 2.5 years. Starks had 315 rushing yards and 1 TD in games in the playoffs. Id hardly call that dominant.

 

[Short Corner]

So basically, the Packers floated a trial baloon to the media that they might have to cut Grant based on his salary. Grant see the story, freaks out, calls his agent, agent calls the Packers, we get a new deal done, and in the mean time we have message boards like this going nuts. This was nothing more than a negotiating technique. I think if Grant stuck to his guns he would still have the same salary. Seems after sitting in the trainers room for 15.5 regular season games he got nervous and let the Packers play him.

The supposed "leaked" story came out after the apparent restructuring.

Doesn't mean it wasn't leaked and the reporter took some time to try to corroborate the story with another source before he submitted it to be printed. Seems pretty ridiculous for him to publish after Grant got a million plus roster bonus and then restructured his deal which sort of negates the whole premise. Sounds like he sat on the info for too long and Grant got wind and got rid of the cap implication...

So it was leaked as a ploy...wasn't published yet...but Grant read the report that was not yet out for another week and renegotiated?its ok to admit your tinfoil hat theory was bogus...its alright.Better idea...perhaps the renegotiation simply was yet to be public knowledge...so they went with their report which was all speculative as it was.

I'm not saying Grant read the story and renegotiated. That would make no sense. They leak the story to the reporter. While the reporter is trying to vet the story, he asks a few players and maybe even Grant himself if management has come to him to renegotiate because he heard there was a chance he could be a cap casualty. Management could've also leaked it to a few people to leak to the reporter and Grant heard about it before the reporter did. I'm not saying this is what happened, as I don't know, but it sure seems like this was all a load of crap to get the guy to renegotiate. If he was at risk of being cut, why would they have the guy run with the first team and not work more on seeing Stark and Green run?They're pretty deep into TC, all rookies are signed, I believe, and there are no real FA's out there, so why the need to make a cap cut now? Why not threaten a cap cut in a rumor, let a guy nervous about missing all of last year and the team winning it all without him, who drafted a guy in the 3rd, know you're thinking of cutting him in order to save a couple mill? It's not so tin foil hat-ish as you think. Guys do this crap all the time. Do you really think Bellichek was going to cut Ocho Cinco and Haynesworth? That was the rumor last week, no way it was going to happen, but I bet Bellichek got exactly what he wanted from it, Chad and Albert in line and the rest of the team on eggshells thinking, "If he can cut those guys he can cut anybody." If you think a team using the media to send a message is just a crazy theory of mine, I have some ocean front property in Nebraska for you...

Or maybe they were really considering cutting him. If you have a hard time believing they would cut him to save $5M against the cap, it is even less conceivable that they would open themselves up to this type of speculation just to save a third of that.

If he had no trade value, I would agree with you, but I have to believe the Cardinals and the Lions would both give something for Ryan Grant and thus cutting the guy seems a little extreme. But I could be wrong. It's just a theory

By renegotiating they just increased his trade value. I don't know who has how much cap space, but trading for 28 year old RB with year left on his contract would be a move for a team with SB aspirations THIS year. Not sure if Arizona or Detroit fit that description.

 

[zoonation]

Starks' health right now makes this a non-starter. I'm sure they would like to cut Grant, who isn't near the back Starks is when healthy IMO. But Starks isn't 100% and they would be one hit away from starting a rookie. That isn't going to fly for a Superbowl contender that throws a ton and needs a back that can pick up the blitz and perform in audible situations.

Having said all of that, Starks will take the job from Grant at some point this year, and GB will be paying Grant a lot of money to be a backup.

Wat?I dont how anyone can say, at this point, that when both are healthy, Grant isnt near as good as Starks. If anything its the other way around.

I guess I wouldnt be shocked if Starks is getting more carries by the end of the year, but Id be very surprised if he is barring another Grant injury.

I guess we just disagree. Grant has never impressed me with his skill set. Starks was dominant in the playoffs lst year and runs like a beast. Grant is soft IMO.

His skill set doesnt impress me (average speed, not great at breaking tackles), but he got it done at 1st round fantasy levels for 2.5 years. Starks had 315 rushing yards and 1 TD in games in the playoffs. Id hardly call that dominant.

on how many carries?Edit: 58. Almost 6 ypc.

 

[GroveDiesel]

FWIW... Greg Rosenthal, NBC sports:

"MDS passed along the surprising news earlier Wednesday that Packers running back Ryan Grant is not a lock to make the team. That news probably didn’t come as a huge shock to Grant.

Adam Caplan of TheSidelineview.com reports that Grant took a $1 million pay cut earlier this month. His base salary was cut from $3.5 million to $2.5 million. (His bonus money due remains at the same total, although it’s unclear if the structure has changed.)

The question then becomes: Does taking a pay cut make Grant’s job safe?

It can’t, but we doubt it guarantees anything. When a veteran takes a pay cut early in camp, it’s usually a sign that the team is ready to move on if necessary. If Grant wasn’t willing to take the reduction, he would likely be an ex-Packer already.

Ultimately, this isn’t about money. It’s about who G.M. Ted Thompson gives them the best chance to win a Super Bowl this year and into the future: Grant or Dimitri Nance. (Or perhaps they could keep both.)

We have no idea how Grant has looked in camp coming off surgery, but he probably hasn’t blown the team away considering the two stories that surfaced Wednesday."

It's since been reported that the revised contract is guaranteed, so Grant is safe for his roster spot-- for this year only. But it doesn't bode well for his fantasy outlook as it appears he's on the performance bubble.

Yeah, guaranteeing $4M in salary for the year is a bad sign. Ok. Guaranteeing his contract tells me that the Packers realize that they need him this year if they're going to make another run. But they don't want to sign him to an extension.

 

[Fire the Fat Man]

Starks' health right now makes this a non-starter. I'm sure they would like to cut Grant, who isn't near the back Starks is when healthy IMO. But Starks isn't 100% and they would be one hit away from starting a rookie. That isn't going to fly for a Superbowl contender that throws a ton and needs a back that can pick up the blitz and perform in audible situations.

Having said all of that, Starks will take the job from Grant at some point this year, and GB will be paying Grant a lot of money to be a backup.

Wat?II dont how anyone can say, at this point, that when both are healthy, Grant isnt near as good as Starks. If anything its the other way around.

I guess I wouldnt be shocked if Starks is getting more carries by the end of the year, but Id be very surprised if he is barring another Grant injury.

I guess we just disagree. Grant has never impressed me with his skill set. Starks was dominant in the playoffs lst year and runs like a beast. Grant is soft IMO.

His skill set doesnt impress me (average speed, not great at breaking tackles), but he got it done at 1st round fantasy levels for 2.5 years. Starks had 315 rushing yards and 1 TD in games in the playoffs. Id hardly call that dominant.

on how many carries?Edit: 58. Almost 6 ypc.

Please don't spit out incorrect stats. He had 81 carries, giving him a 3.9 ypc

 

[zoonation]

Starks' health right now makes this a non-starter. I'm sure they would like to cut Grant, who isn't near the back Starks is when healthy IMO. But Starks isn't 100% and they would be one hit away from starting a rookie. That isn't going to fly for a Superbowl contender that throws a ton and needs a back that can pick up the blitz and perform in audible situations.

Having said all of that, Starks will take the job from Grant at some point this year, and GB will be paying Grant a lot of money to be a backup.

Wat?II dont how anyone can say, at this point, that when both are healthy, Grant isnt near as good as Starks. If anything its the other way around.

I guess I wouldnt be shocked if Starks is getting more carries by the end of the year, but Id be very surprised if he is barring another Grant injury.

I guess we just disagree. Grant has never impressed me with his skill set. Starks was dominant in the playoffs lst year and runs like a beast. Grant is soft IMO.

His skill set doesnt impress me (average speed, not great at breaking tackles), but he got it done at 1st round fantasy levels for 2.5 years. Starks had 315 rushing yards and 1 TD in games in the playoffs. Id hardly call that dominant.

on how many carries?Edit: 58. Almost 6 ypc.

Please don't spit out incorrect stats. He had 81 carries, giving him a 3.9 ypc

Woops! forgot to add in the WC game.Sorry to offend you.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Ahman Green was decent, but he was a flash in a pan who fumbled too much.

He's the leading rusher in history of the Packer franchise.

 

[FavreAndAwayAnIdiot]

Ahman Green was decent, but he was a flash in a pan who fumbled too much.

He's the leading rusher in history of the Packer franchise.

Which illustrates my point. The Packers have never really had a stud franchise running back.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Ahman Green was decent, but he was a flash in a pan who fumbled too much.

He's the leading rusher in history of the Packer franchise.

Which illustrates my point. The Packers have never really had a stud franchise running back.

He had 200 fewer rushing yards than Earl Campbell and 250 fewer than Shaun Alexander.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Starks' health right now makes this a non-starter. I'm sure they would like to cut Grant, who isn't near the back Starks is when healthy IMO. But Starks isn't 100% and they would be one hit away from starting a rookie. That isn't going to fly for a Superbowl contender that throws a ton and needs a back that can pick up the blitz and perform in audible situations.

Having said all of that, Starks will take the job from Grant at some point this year, and GB will be paying Grant a lot of money to be a backup.

Wat?II dont how anyone can say, at this point, that when both are healthy, Grant isnt near as good as Starks. If anything its the other way around.

I guess I wouldnt be shocked if Starks is getting more carries by the end of the year, but Id be very surprised if he is barring another Grant injury.

I guess we just disagree. Grant has never impressed me with his skill set. Starks was dominant in the playoffs lst year and runs like a beast. Grant is soft IMO.

His skill set doesnt impress me (average speed, not great at breaking tackles), but he got it done at 1st round fantasy levels for 2.5 years. Starks had 315 rushing yards and 1 TD in games in the playoffs. Id hardly call that dominant.

on how many carries?Edit: 58. Almost 6 ypc.

Please don't spit out incorrect stats. He had 81 carries, giving him a 3.9 ypc

Woops! forgot to add in the WC game.Sorry to offend you.

It makes a pretty huge difference. Starks had a great game in the Wild Card game, a very poor game in the Divisional Game, a subpar game in the Conference Championship, and a decent game in the Super Bowl. With 2 very underwhelming games, a great one, and a good one, and a 3.9ypc, I wouldn't really say that qualifies as dominant.

 

[cvnpoka]

lol at ahman green not being a "franchise back."

 

[FavreAndAwayAnIdiot]

Ahman Green was decent, but he was a flash in a pan who fumbled too much.

He's the leading rusher in history of the Packer franchise.

OWhich illustrates my point. The Packers have never really had a stud franchise running back.

He had 200 fewer rushing yards than Earl Campbell and 250 fewer than Shaun Alexander.

You're clearly an Ahman Green fan. I liked him, too, but do not think as highly of him. Other than his 20 TD year, he never really struck me as a 'special' player. He was a product of the system, like Alexander. Earl Campbell is a different story. HE was special.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

You're clearly an Ahman Green fan. I liked him, too, but do not think as highly of him. Other than his 20 TD year, he never really struck me as a 'special' player. He was a product of the system, like Alexander. Earl Campbell is a different story. HE was special.

I'm a Packer fan, but not especially an Ahman Green fan. I just thought your statement was unsubstantiated.

Ahman Green was decent, but he was a flash in a pan who fumbled too much.

You've offered nothing to back this up, other than blanket assertions. He wasn't "a flash in the pan" as evidenced by the players near him on the all-time rushing list.And again, I'm not a Green fan.

 

[FavreAndAwayAnIdiot]

You're clearly an Ahman Green fan. I liked him, too, but do not think as highly of him. Other than his 20 TD year, he never really struck me as a 'special' player. He was a product of the system, like Alexander. Earl Campbell is a different story. HE was special.

I'm a Packer fan, but not especially an Ahman Green fan. I just thought your statement was unsubstantiated.

Ahman Green was decent, but he was a flash in a pan who fumbled too much.

You've offered nothing to back this up, other than blanket assertions. He wasn't "a flash in the pan" as evidenced by the players near him on the all-time rushing list.And again, I'm not a Green fan.

Sorry Alex, wasn't aware I had to substantiate my opinions with career stats. If that's your watermark, there are many players with good career stats who just didn't have 'it'. Perhaps that's a topic for another thread? But watching Green during his career, I just didn't think he had that 'it' factor. Teams were more concerned about defending Brett Favre, and Green always seemed to fumble at the worst times.

 

[sho nuff]

So basically, the Packers floated a trial baloon to the media that they might have to cut Grant based on his salary. Grant see the story, freaks out, calls his agent, agent calls the Packers, we get a new deal done, and in the mean time we have message boards like this going nuts. This was nothing more than a negotiating technique. I think if Grant stuck to his guns he would still have the same salary. Seems after sitting in the trainers room for 15.5 regular season games he got nervous and let the Packers play him.

The supposed "leaked" story came out after the apparent restructuring.

Doesn't mean it wasn't leaked and the reporter took some time to try to corroborate the story with another source before he submitted it to be printed. Seems pretty ridiculous for him to publish after Grant got a million plus roster bonus and then restructured his deal which sort of negates the whole premise. Sounds like he sat on the info for too long and Grant got wind and got rid of the cap implication...

So it was leaked as a ploy...wasn't published yet...but Grant read the report that was not yet out for another week and renegotiated?its ok to admit your tinfoil hat theory was bogus...its alright.Better idea...perhaps the renegotiation simply was yet to be public knowledge...so they went with their report which was all speculative as it was.

I'm not saying Grant read the story and renegotiated. That would make no sense. They leak the story to the reporter. While the reporter is trying to vet the story, he asks a few players and maybe even Grant himself if management has come to him to renegotiate because he heard there was a chance he could be a cap casualty. Management could've also leaked it to a few people to leak to the reporter and Grant heard about it before the reporter did. I'm not saying this is what happened, as I don't know, but it sure seems like this was all a load of crap to get the guy to renegotiate. If he was at risk of being cut, why would they have the guy run with the first team and not work more on seeing Stark and Green run?They're pretty deep into TC, all rookies are signed, I believe, and there are no real FA's out there, so why the need to make a cap cut now? Why not threaten a cap cut in a rumor, let a guy nervous about missing all of last year and the team winning it all without him, who drafted a guy in the 3rd, know you're thinking of cutting him in order to save a couple mill? It's not so tin foil hat-ish as you think. Guys do this crap all the time. Do you really think Bellichek was going to cut Ocho Cinco and Haynesworth? That was the rumor last week, no way it was going to happen, but I bet Bellichek got exactly what he wanted from it, Chad and Albert in line and the rest of the team on eggshells thinking, "If he can cut those guys he can cut anybody." If you think a team using the media to send a message is just a crazy theory of mine, I have some ocean front property in Nebraska for you...

I think the team using a story that had not come out yet to send a message is a crazy theory yes.And you claim you are not saying he read the story...yet in your first theory...its right there "Grant see the story, freaks out".Though, what appears to have happened...they cut $1mil from his salary, guaranteed the rest of it (meaning he won't be cut and he gets the $2.5 mil this year...and he agreed.

 

[sho nuff]

Ahman Green was decent, but he was a flash in a pan who fumbled too much.

He's the leading rusher in history of the Packer franchise.

OWhich illustrates my point. The Packers have never really had a stud franchise running back.

He had 200 fewer rushing yards than Earl Campbell and 250 fewer than Shaun Alexander.

You're clearly an Ahman Green fan. I liked him, too, but do not think as highly of him. Other than his 20 TD year, he never really struck me as a 'special' player. He was a product of the system, like Alexander. Earl Campbell is a different story. HE was special.

Green was a freaking stud.Great combination of power and speed and very good hands.One of the better screen RBs out there.

 

[FavreAndAwayAnIdiot]

Ahman Green was decent, but he was a flash in a pan who fumbled too much.

He's the leading rusher in history of the Packer franchise.

OWhich illustrates my point. The Packers have never really had a stud franchise running back.

He had 200 fewer rushing yards than Earl Campbell and 250 fewer than Shaun Alexander.

You're clearly an Ahman Green fan. I liked him, too, but do not think as highly of him. Other than his 20 TD year, he never really struck me as a 'special' player. He was a product of the system, like Alexander. Earl Campbell is a different story. HE was special.

Green was a freaking stud.Great combination of power and speed and very good hands.One of the better screen RBs out there.

He was very productive, yes. I just wonder how good a guy like Campbell, Peterson, Tomlinson, etc-- guys that can take over the game themselves-- would have been in that offense. Great O-line, stud QB forcing nickels all the time. I think Green would have been merely average had he been on a different team. But again, it's mere speculation on my part and obviously many disagree.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

You're clearly an Ahman Green fan. I liked him, too, but do not think as highly of him. Other than his 20 TD year, he never really struck me as a 'special' player. He was a product of the system, like Alexander. Earl Campbell is a different story. HE was special.

I'm a Packer fan, but not especially an Ahman Green fan. I just thought your statement was unsubstantiated.

Ahman Green was decent, but he was a flash in a pan who fumbled too much.

You've offered nothing to back this up, other than blanket assertions. He wasn't "a flash in the pan" as evidenced by the players near him on the all-time rushing list.And again, I'm not a Green fan.

Sorry Alex, wasn't aware I had to substantiate my opinions with career stats. If that's your watermark, there are many players with good career stats who just didn't have 'it'. Perhaps that's a topic for another thread? But watching Green during his career, I just didn't think he had that 'it' factor. Teams were more concerned about defending Brett Favre, and Green always seemed to fumble at the worst times.

No worries. I wasn't looking for stats, just simple logic.

 

[FavreAndAwayAnIdiot]

You're clearly an Ahman Green fan. I liked him, too, but do not think as highly of him. Other than his 20 TD year, he never really struck me as a 'special' player. He was a product of the system, like Alexander. Earl Campbell is a different story. HE was special.

I'm a Packer fan, but not especially an Ahman Green fan. I just thought your statement was unsubstantiated.

Ahman Green was decent, but he was a flash in a pan who fumbled too much.

You've offered nothing to back this up, other than blanket assertions. He wasn't "a flash in the pan" as evidenced by the players near him on the all-time rushing list.And again, I'm not a Green fan.

Sorry Alex, wasn't aware I had to substantiate my opinions with career stats. If that's your watermark, there are many players with good career stats who just didn't have 'it'. Perhaps that's a topic for another thread? But watching Green during his career, I just didn't think he had that 'it' factor. Teams were more concerned about defending Brett Favre, and Green always seemed to fumble at the worst times.

No worries. I wasn't looking for stats, just simple logic.

You know it brings up a good question, now that he's been out of mind for awhile. I wonder where he'd rank on people's all-time list? Out of curiousity I've been looking around and I'm not seeing him in the top 50.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

You know it brings up a good question, now that he's been out of mind for awhile. I wonder where he'd rank on people's all-time list? Out of curiousity I've been looking around and I'm not seeing him in the top 50.

Probably a few spots higher than Ryan Grant.

 

[FavreAndAwayAnIdiot]

You know it brings up a good question, now that he's been out of mind for awhile. I wonder where he'd rank on people's all-time list? Out of curiousity I've been looking around and I'm not seeing him in the top 50.

Probably a few spots higher than Ryan Grant.

I'll give ya that one. I agree.

 

[LawFitz]

Coach and FO actions vs. beat writer opinions.

I'll take the former every time. And in this case, unless someone has compelling evidence that the Pack is desperate for cap space, I see no way they cut him. Especially with Starks hurting already.

They have a shot to win another Super Bowl here for crying out loud. Do you really think that they'd lesson those odds if they don't absolutely have to?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

not to derail the ahman green convo....

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/packers.html

Pay cut, guarantees for Grant

By Bob McGinn of the Journal Sentinel

Aug. 24, 2011 4:34 p.m.

Running back Ryan Grant probably strengthened his chances of making the final roster of the Green Bay Packers by accepting a $1 million reduction in his base salary this season in exchange for a guaranteed contract.

On Aug. 9, the Packers and Alan Herman, the agent for Grant, agreed to a restructuring in which Grant's base salary was reduced from $3.5 million to $2.5 million. His cap salary this year decreased from $4.797 million to $3.797 million, which gives the Packers an extra $1 million of room to re-sign veterans such as Josh Sitton and Jermichael Finley.

However, Grant's new base salary of $2.5 million was fully guaranteed against both skill and injury. His previous base of $3.5 million was not guaranteed.

Thus, if the Packers were to cut Grant on the final roster reduction Sept. 3, they now would have to pay him the $2.5 million. Before the restructuring, they wouldn't have had to pay him the $3.5 million if he was cut before the start of the regular season.

No other changes were made to the final year of the four-year, $18 million contract that Grant signed in August 2008.

Earlier this month, Grant was paid a roster bonus of $1 million on the 15th day of the NFL year. He can earn another $750,00 in roster bonuses by being active for every game.

 

[cvnpoka]

He was very productive, yes. I just wonder how good a guy like Campbell, Peterson, Tomlinson, etc-- guys that can take over the game themselves-- would have been in that offense. Great O-line, stud QB forcing nickels all the time. I think Green would have been merely average had he been on a different team. But again, it's mere speculation on my part and obviously many disagree.

ya those guys arent merely "franchise backs," they are all time greats.

 

[cr8f]

So basically, the Packers floated a trial baloon to the media that they might have to cut Grant based on his salary. Grant see the story, freaks out, calls his agent, agent calls the Packers, we get a new deal done, and in the mean time we have message boards like this going nuts. This was nothing more than a negotiating technique. I think if Grant stuck to his guns he would still have the same salary. Seems after sitting in the trainers room for 15.5 regular season games he got nervous and let the Packers play him.

The Packers said that? The JS is more like Mike Florio's gossip outfits than a real newspaper. They said that and guessed to get publicity. Where did the Packers say this?